IOW’s we simply want to continue wanting forever — Pinprick

Ok, seems reasonable, so what happens when we get everything we want?

I want everything I can imagine. I get it. Now what?

First of all, science tells how the World is, not how it should be — ssu

Right. We say how the world should be. And then we hire scientists to help work on making it so.

Though he distanced himself from Theosophy later in his life — Ciceronianus the White

Early twenties, upon coming to adulthood.

it seems he never denied what they said he was — Ciceronianus the White

He repeatedly denied it over and over again throughout his life, but in an authoritative voice, which admittedly muddled the denial a bit.

I await reprimand for pedantry and cynicism and other even more reprehensible traits. — Ciceronianus the White

Ha, ha! Consider yourself spanked.

Krishnamurti was an intelligent and articulate human being. Emphasis on human being. He had an affair with his best friend's wife and then blamed his friend's distress on his friend's lack of maturity. What could possibly be more lame?? But still, he was intelligent and articulate.

About ten years ago I happened to chat online with the lead teacher at the Krishnamurti school in California. He told me Krishnamurti was the closest thing to a god we'd ever see. I listened patiently, while quietly banging my head on the monitor. Human beings, all of us, human beings.

I'd rather you stayed, as a useful voice of scepticism — FrancisRay

I'd rather Praxis stayed too, as a useful voice offering constructive alternatives.

Praxis, earlier you mentioned a book you were involved with. Is it at all relevant to this thread? If yes, care to share?

This is a denial of Buddhist doctrine — FrancisRay

If Buddhist doctrine is a doctrine which denies doctrines, I should fit right in. :-)

Why do you assume spatial and temporal extension is real? This is a denial of Buddhist doctrine. In Buddhism space is defined as 'non-obstruction'. No suggestion that it is a thing. The phrase 'advaita' implies there are not two places or two times — FrancisRay

Ok, I'm agreeable to learning about this.

Please recall, I did explain that my space theory is just speculation. Interesting to me. Sometimes a conversation starter. Could change at any moment.

Exactly! If Buddhist doctrine is not universal then it is nonsense — FrancisRay

I was, well, referring to the universality of ideological conflict within every ideology.

Therevada is an ideology. Mahayana is search for truth; — FrancisRay

Which often looks kinda like that. :-) My ideology too, same thing, all ideologies. Divide, divide, divide.

One just has to shut up and calculate, and there is no arguing with the results. — FrancisRay

Any house built by one man can be burned down by another.

This is why I don;t like your laissez faire approach — FrancisRay

Not quite accurate. I spend what seems a million hours a year in my "church". I show up, I put in the time, I do the work. Just not exactly the same work you do, that's all.

And, however my approach might be described, I have no objection to anyone not liking it. To each their own, whatever works. I'm describing one of many options, not a "one true way".

PS: (though weaknesses in my personality and writing style may sometimes give that impression. my bad.)

You asked about the substrate that is the continuum underlying life and death and is our immortality. This would be the ‘spirit that rolls through all things’ Wordsworth feels in his heart as he walks around Tintern Abbey in the Wye valley, the very same spirit you feel as you walk the woods paying attention to life and the Great Spirit of the native Americans, the One that is All known as Wakantanka. — FrancisRay

Thanks for following up. Ok, that which some call God, and which is identified by many other names as well.

It would be everywhere at all times — FrancisRay

As my Catholic upbringing also suggested.

This would be how God is able to watch every sparrow that falls. He would be unable not to watch. — FrancisRay

Joni Mitchell called God "the tireless watcher", a phrase I always enjoyed.

In recent years Hippyheadism has speculated that this phenomena is space. Ever present at every scale, both real and non-existing, transcending simplistic human dualism, perhaps tirelessly watching. This Thing we're looking for, embedded in the fabric of reality, right in front of our faces at all times. But often missed, because we are distracted by the all little symbols which point to it.

Like I said, speculation, but to the degree true, perhaps a unification of theism and atheism. Theists access this Thing with their hearts, while atheists access It with their minds.

may, I suspect, lose their ability to tune in to the Great Spirit, — FrancisRay

The urbanization of humanity may be the biggest news to come out of the 20th century. That said, the Thing we are discussing is claimed to be everywhere, so perhaps those who have paved over all their trees :-) will adapt, and find another way. We humans do things like that.

Yes he is. But a reliable teacher. I see it isn't only trees and armadillos from whom you learn. — FrancisRay

JK and I were 50 years ago, but yes, I was influenced by his writing.

Abandoning thought to prevent suffering would be like cutting off your legs to avoid having to trim your toenails. — FrancisRay

Yes, but I've not suggested abandoning thought, except temporarily. Abandoning it permanently would clearly not be possible, and if possible, not advisable.

The trouble it causes would probably be in direct proportion of the number of Theravadans present. — FrancisRay

Ah, I see. Well, I have no idea who the Theravadans are, but this sounds like the kind of ideological divisions which inevitably arise in every ideology. As I've said, probably too many times, I find the universal nature of that phenomena to be instructive.

It is not necessary to stop thinking, only to become detached, desireless, egoless etc. — FrancisRay

In the ideal abstract, ok, that's an interesting concept. In the real world of human beings, rarely possible. I'm really not trying to convert you to anything, but just reporting my own situation. I find widely accessible solutions to be the most interesting.

If you examine the Buddha, Lao Tsu, Sri Ramana Maharshi, Mooji, Spira and other well-known teachers you'll see they do a lot of thinking and are quite good at it — FrancisRay

Perhaps you've noticed, I do a lot of thinking too! Whether I'm good at is a matter of some dispute. :-) We're all doing a lot of thinking, just coming to different conclusions on some points, while enjoying considerable agreement on others. I see my job as a thinker, a forum poster, to try to add something to a conversation. So if you say tomato, I may very well say tomawto, if I believe that doing so might present constructive alternatives for some readers. You know, if I was a deeply educated party line Buddhist I would not be needed here, as readers already have you.

I wonder if your view on this issue is result of listening to Krishnamurti, since he is an unusual teacher who many people find too analytical and wordy, or too steeped in thought — FrancisRay

My view on this issue arises primarily from the fact that I find myself too analytical and wordy, and too steeped in thought. And so as a young man I was attracted to the same. Krishnamurti was broadcasting on the only channel I could access at the time. He performed a useful function of alerting me to other channels, which I then proceeded to explore on my own. At this point 50 years later it's no longer possible for me to separate his influence from other influences. It doesn't matter to me too much, so not a problem.

but a partial cessation is commonplace and one of most accessible of the benefits of the practice. — FrancisRay

I'm all for that. When hungry, pick up some food and eat it.

Let's return to the incident when a workman dropped a wrench inside a missile silo, leading to the missile exploding and ejecting the warhead from the silo. Here's the video again, from above in the thread.



My suggestion is that if we are ever to escape nuke madness, it may start like this. A nuclear weapons accident which causes major destruction, such as the contamination of the entire state of Arkansas. Such an event would focus the world on nuclear weapons, without leading to a war and even more destruction.

So you get up one day, check your news feed, and discover that say, much or most of the state of Georgia is now uninhabitable because of an unintended detonation at the nuke sub base on the Atlantic coast of that state.

What happens next? Sure, the media goes ape shit crazy, a given. But then what? How would America respond to the loss of one of it's states?

Oh well, these things happen?

Mad panic?

Political chaos?

Forgotten in three weeks?

How would America sustain it's nuclear arsenal in such a political environment? Put all the nukes on subs and get them off American soil? Move them all to Saudi Arabia?

Another possible angle....

The problem is not knowledge, or even power, but rather the gap between power and our maturity, or rather relative lack thereof. If science could close this gap by somehow accelerating our maturity to match the demands that will increasingly be placed upon it, in theory that could be a solution.

I don't have the slightest idea how that might actually work, but at least the theory may demonstrate that it is not knowledge which is the enemy, but the gap.

So is this the key to ending chaos and suffering, to truly understand the significance of the present? — Metaphysician Undercover

Certainly many would say so. Krishnamurti obviously does. The Buddhists seem to, best I can tell, a very loose and considerably ignorant summary of their position.

His Glorious Flatulence Sri Baba Hippyhead, perhaps the greatest Buddhist sage of all time according to himself, fake news rumors, and his pet retarded squirrel, rudely belches a different message.

1) Understanding is made of thought.

2) Thought is the source of suffering.

So what then? Jesus suggested "Die to be reborn". While Baba Hippyhead makes no claim to Christian theology expertise, he thinks that might mean...

Die to the symbolic, and be reborn in to the real.

A temporary psychological death, perhaps revealing that which all symbols point to.

Brother Lawrence related that we should establish ourselves in a sense of God's Presence by continually conversing with Him

Or, we could establish ourselves in God's presence by shutting up and listening. What some people call God is what comes in to view when we stop talking in our heads, that is, thinking. It's always been there, whatever one wishes to call it, but we typically don't notice because our attention is focused elsewhere. On symbols which point to reality. Instead of on reality itself.

Does God exist? Certainly God exists in books and theories, but that is not what we usually mean by the question. What we usually are asking is, does God exist in the real world? But then we typically don't look in the real world, but instead look in books and theories.

BOB: "Hey Phil, are my shoes in my closet?"

PHIL: "I dunno Bob, I'll go look in the garage to find out."

Hardly adopted as He either exists or He doesn't — david plumb

As hath been honked many times here already, the vast majority of reality (space) significantly undermines your assumption. If interested, please explain why that may be.

I’ve noticed an apparent avoidance of discussing rebirth/karma here — praxis

As a hopefully comic interlude, I would like to introduce a new term: Karma Hog

This is what we call a person who is so kind, so compassionate, and so in service to others that they're sucking up almost all the karma available within reality, leaving little left over for buttheads such as myself.

I call my wife this all the time. She'll be up at 3am feeding (again!) seven orphaned baby squirrels that just came in, and if I catch her at it I'll scowl, point an accusing finger, and snarl "DAMN KARMA HOG!!!"

She thinks this is pretty much as stupid as everything else I say, but she's a good sport about it.

DAMN KARMA HOG!!!

You might be assuming that but I'm not — Srap Tasmaner

Ok, continue.

I thought your idea of their being two different rates of change was spot on, and very close to what others have said. Given that, we can demand that the new tech demonstrate first, or as it reaches development milestones, whatever, demonstrate that it can be controlled. — Srap Tasmaner

Seems a reasonable step in the right direction. So, as example, before genetic engineering can proceed we'd need some kind of binding global authority which controls funding, or can implement punishment for violators? Something like that? If yes, then this is essentially a political problem, a failure to work together?

This is exactly what did not happen with nuclear weapons — Srap Tasmaner

It can be argued that nuclear weapons have been successfully controlled by MAD, but wow, the potential price tag for such a system is huge, almost beyond comprehension.

If we block their use entirely, we miss out on a good. Are we to have a Ministry of Technology that would approve uses, and police and strictly control their distribution? I'm not in love with the idea, but maybe it's necessary. — Srap Tasmaner

But it has to be a global Ministry of Technology, right? This may raise some interesting questions. What could science contribute, if anything, to the development and effectiveness of global governing systems? If we aimed half of the scientists at that, we might be getting somewhere. Very vague idea so far for sure, but better than nothing?

A key challenge I see is that science culture will very reasonably argue that the current "free for all" status quo has brought enormous benefits. Which is true! And so they will dazzle the public by dangling even more benefits under their eyes. "We are on the verge of curing cancer" etc. I predict it will be enormously challenging to get science culture to embrace any kind of meaningful limits.

Ethics is an important aspect of scientific development, but it’s also an important aspect of interpreting and communicating scientific knowledge - it’s here that no-one seems to be taking responsibility. The scientific method includes interpreting and making conclusions from the data, but too often this bit is left to science journalists, whose short-term goal is consumption of information. So they will qualitatively structure that information in a way that increases consumption. — Possibility

Great post, thanks!

Would it be accurate to say that everyone involved is acting intelligently and professionally within their narrow lane, and some talk about the big picture, but nobody is responsible for the big picture? So this huge very intelligent knowledge machine keeps grinding on blindly towards the cliff.

Perhaps nobody is responsible for the big picture because we assume that no one could be, which seems a reasonable theory. If true, then we aren't really in charge, right? Should we reconfigure our view of this from "we are developing knowledge" to "knowledge is developing us"?

Sometimes I think of knowledge as another element of nature, like water, air, space, atoms etc. We've wandered in to a knowledge hurricane and don't know how to find our way out. Or more precisely, we typically don't realize that hurricanes are dangerous?

The unconventional views expressed in this topic, with the exception of Wayfarer and TLCD1996, may not be well tolerated. — praxis

Thanks Praxis. Perhaps that's part of what I was wondering. You know, on a philosophy forum everything is up for challenge. Not always so on sites dedicated to particular disciplines.

Example. Human culture has survived for thousands of years without genetic engineering. So why not pull the plug on that field and engage a century long conversation on that subject before continuing?

A reasonable argument can be made that this would be impossible because if we don't do it somebody else will. That is, we aren't in control of the knowledge explosion, it's in control of us. That could very well be true. If it is, we are fucked. So let's face that squarely, and stop pretending we are going to somehow cleverly avoid the logical outcome of ever more power delivered at any ever faster rate.

An individual has to face the fact that they are inevitably going to die. Time for our civilization to do the same?

Scientists themselves are aware of the problems of not communicating with the wider public about their work — Srap Tasmaner

Agreed. But when they learn to communicate better, won't they use that ability to sell us on more of their work?

It could amount to "you don't get our money until we understand what you're doing, so explain it" in the best possible way. — Srap Tasmaner

So they will explain it. And then keep doing more of it.

How about this? "You don't get our money until you demonstrate an understanding that science is a death trap."

Arguing against the death trap theory would require one to demonstrate that human beings are capable of successfully managing any amount of power delivered at any rate. If they would like to rise to that challenge I would surely be interested to hear the case.

Do you have any contacts in the science community? Know anybody who does? If you can arrange a friendly debate in neutral territory that would be a good next step for this conversation.

Joni Mitchell, best popular music artist of the now geezer generation. She did everything, and did it all so well, and has such a strong body of work. No 'one hit wonder' that Joni.

There needs to be a balance between acceptance and non-acceptance. — TLCD1996

I like this. The middle way, eh?

The thing is, assuming that death is the end or nobody has realized cessation are both things we don't know for sure — TLCD1996

Fair enough. Yea, just expressing my own faith based belief on the death issue.

To be clear, I'm not claiming no one has realized a cessation of suffering. There's no way I could know such a thing. I'm instead claiming that such a cessation would appear to be exceedingly rare.

And of course, it's totally a matter of faith — TLCD1996

The faith part seems to be related to the very ambitious goals.

But in my opinion, the skepticism grows weaker when one meets good models — TLCD1996

Ok, good point, yea, that would help. For the sake of discussion I'm willing to assume such experts exist. Mozart was real. But can Mozart teach me to be a Mozart too? That's less clear. But if you meet models who have succeeded in taking their students where you wish to go, ok, that surely helps.

So faith in the practice, and also a willingness to see one's death as something other than a reason to just sit back and relax — TLCD1996

Well, everyone has their own preferred flavor of faith. :-) And there's less proof of mine than yours, so there's that.

A hippy house I built in the woods back in the seventies. Don't have any photos, so I modeled it in SketchUp for the memory lane buzz.

Yes, that's one way out of many; a common way for impatient or enthusiastic people to make themselves suffer. — TLCD1996

I find peace in the woods, become addicted to it, and then resent my neighbor's barking dog.

Therefore suffering arises from something a little more subtle than thinking — TLCD1996

The resentment of my neighbor's dog is made of thought. What else could it be made of?

Once one goes beyond thinking, there's still some suffering — TLCD1996

Ok, but isn't that called being alive as a human being? Isn't a notion that we should somehow transcend suffering altogether just another form of rejecting "what is"? I'll admit I'm uncomfortable with such an agenda, but I'm more than happy to talk about it.

Therefore a stream-enterer may be free in a big way, but not totally — TLCD1996

Well, there's already a method of being totally free in a big way which is available to every person ever born. It's called death. Seriously, not being snarky here. What's the big hurry? We're all going to get there, no matter what we do, 100% guaranteed. Well ok, I guess this easier to say at age 68 than younger ages.

Suffering is something to be understood, its cause abandoned, its cessation realized, and the way leading to cessation developed. — TLCD1996

I realize that this is Buddhist theory, which you put well. The problem we're having (or rather that I'm having) is that in my 68 years I've not yet met a single person for whom suffering has ceased. I'm open to the possibility that such people exist, for there are very talented rare end of bell curve people in every field of endeavor, but they would seem to be so rare as to be largely irrelevant.

Here's what I suspect is happening. Mozart gives a class on how to become a Mozart. Many people learn how to play the piano, but almost no one becomes a Mozart, because one has to be born in to such a talent. Point being, just because some rarely talented expert can transcend suffering permanently really tells us nothing about whether they can teach the average person to also do that.

That said, I don't think our views are really that much in conflict. I'm arguing primarily for a practical focus on suffering management. If such a focus should lead to suffering cessation, great, no complaints at all, that would obviously be good.

Buddhism would be a way to re-unify life and death by revealing the underlying state common to both. — FrancisRay

Underlying state common to both life and death. If there's more that can be said about this from within the Buddhist perspective, interested here.

I've often considered writing a collaborative book in the form of an edited) internet discussion with all sorts of views represented as a commercial philosophical adventure — FrancisRay

That's interesting. Considering market research for such a book, I was curious how this thread might go over on a Buddhist forum. Any idea?

Earlier you said that thought leads beyod thought, and that the purpose of philosophical analysis is to reveal the limits of analysis. This is exactly the value of it. You could equally say that analysis takes us beyond ideology. — FrancisRay

That's one road one can take. We might also keep in mind that most people aren't all that philosophical. But for those of us who are, we start where we are and take that where we can. I started off in this reading Jiddu Krishnamurti, who is very wordy and analytical. That's the only channel I could hear on at the time. I didn't know there were any other channels! :-)

His position It is often said to be not a view but a non-view — FrancisRay

I used to call my view "aphilosophy", as in "not of philosophy". Like atheism is not of theism. The experiences I was pointing to are "aphilosophy" but the explanations obviously are not. So, as you say, a view about non-views.

Thus it sweeps away all our conjectures and beliefs and replaces them with the idea that we are unable to formulate the truth in our mind — FrancisRay

Yes, any "truth" we formulate in our minds is just a symbol. We could take 10,000 photos of me and put them on Facebook, but none of them could ever possibly be me, as they are all photos.

N uses analysis to prove the limits of analysis, thus proving that Reality conforms to a very particular descriptive metaphysical theory. This is a neutral metaphysical theory, which is the formal theory required for non-dualism and the Perennial philosophy. — FrancisRay

It appears that N is a real philosopher operating rather far above my level. Like I said, I seem to have some difficulty remembering what "metaphysical" means. :-)

What worries me about your view is that it might undervalue analysis — FrancisRay

That's fair. Well, I'm very analytical about debunking analysis. I'm a human being, contradiction oozes out of my every pore. :-)

Seriously, I'm really not trying to overthrow the kind of analysis you are discussing, or claim it's all wrong or bad or anything at all like that. Though sometimes I may say it kind of that way as a method of stirring the conversational pot, um, you know, uh, trolling a bit. I'm just trying to offer another optional way of looking at such issues. You know, contribute to the conversation somehow. My bottom line is to each their own, and whatever works is good.

A sceptical intellectual would want to know all this before risking going on a wild goose chase and taking up the practice. — FrancisRay

Well, to be a troll :-), one can always just try meditation and see if that seems like something one wishes to do more of. Perhaps the fear of a wild goose chase arises from the stated or implied promise of some kind of permanent solution, which would indeed seem to be a big project. Hippyhead holy dogma :-) states that thought is just another mechanical function of the body, and so like all other mechanical functions it's an issue of ongoing life long management. You know, we don't go searching for some kind of food which will end our physical hunger forever.

If we do not do the analysis we will miss this fact and be unable to understand metaphysics — FrancisRay

Ok, I hear you. No complaints with this. Personally, I'm not a real philosopher but instead a typoholic blowhard. So if I never understand metaphysics I'll honk about something else. But, that's me, not a rule for anyone else. This is a philosophy forum after all, so what you're discussing seems entirely appropriate.

Her ass might have attracted my attention, but I was actually more interested in the technical part of the animation. — Sir2u

I know, just joking around.

I have experimented with the programs you mentioned, but never had the time to actually do anything with them. — Sir2u

I'm on to Poser now.

Maybe I am the only one to think this, but Hippyhead appears to have more of a chest that a lot of the chicks I know. — Sir2u

Aha, you are very observant! Yes, Hippyman was animated in Mixamo, which warped the shoulders in manner I was unable to fix. And anyway you fool, you're obviously supposed to be focused on his ass. :-)

Scene was created in SketchUp, 3D modeling software typically used for CAD, here used for landscape. Hippyman was created in MakeHuman. Animated in Mixamo. All the parts put together in Hitfilm. All free software.

Every generation believes it has awakened itself to what is really going on and attempts to change the status quo. Is woke culture any different? — david plumb

What ChatteringMonkey said, but to qualify, not all generations are so intent on changing the status quo. The Greatest Generation for example. They just wanted to survive WWII and then buy a refrigerator. Grew up too fast for "wokeness" I guess.

And of course the saddest thing of all is that once the hippies and yippies became old enough to have their own children we largely abandoned so many of our ideals and became the biggest resource sucking greedy hogs in human history. Let that serve as a note of caution to today's young people.

Still, with all our so many faults, the hippies helped open up society to a degree which is probably impossible for today's young people to grasp, as they've never known anything but the world which we created. The sixties have since been overhyped to death, but those were truly revolutionary times on almost every cultural front.

Our nieces relate to hippy culture, but they think being a hippy is going down to the mall to buy a tie dye shirt mass produced by a global corporation. Oh well, I guess it's one of those "you had to be there" things...

Posting here for the sake of interest: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Chicago7/Hoffman.html — StreetlightX

Yes, very interesting! I see now that I've dramatically underestimated Hoffman my entire life. My only excuse is that I was about 17 or so during the time he was most famous. Sadly, the movie reports that Hoffman committed suicide in 1989, the fate of many who are simply too intelligent for this world. Rubin died when he was hit in traffic while jaywalking.

It's also perhaps interesting that they demonstrated at the Democratic Convention (the Dems were responsible for Vietnam) thus handing Nixon the presidency on a silver platter.

I see now that Hoffman was a pioneer. At least the concept of a political movement with no leaders is increasingly relevant today.

All that said, I can see Hayden's point too. People like Hoffman alienated the "silent majority", those who would have to be persuaded to achieve any real change. He even alienated me, and I was on LSD at the time.

Perhaps the central problem here is that the only people genuinely capable of understanding the issues involved are scientists and technologists — Srap Tasmaner

Your point is taken, but I'm not sure the core issue involved is really a technical one. It seems to be more a matter of our relationship with knowledge, and the power that flows from it.

The knowledge explosion has been good to us, and so naturally we want more of it. More and more and more, seemingly without limit. Such a "more is better" philosophy was sensible for most of human history when knowledge was scarce. It seems far less sensible in the midst of a historic ever accelerating knowledge explosion.

As I see it, we are attempting to apply a 19th century philosophy to 21st century problems. Technology races ahead at an ever accelerating rate, while our relationship with technology remains stuck in the past. The gap between the two seems to steadily widen.

To say this isn’t a concern for science is irresponsible — Possibility

Can the proposed danger be said to be a real concern to the science community if knowledge development continues seemingly full speed ahead in every field?

That said, I am agreeable to relating to scientists as one would a highly skilled car mechanic. If the mechanic does the job you're paying him for, we applaud, and don't expect them to be responsible for air pollution.

And what happens if you have a shitty manager (or a shitty Pope)? — praxis

What you are perhaps forgetting is that everyone on Earth is not a great philosopher like you and me. So what may seem correct in the ideal (such as my post above) it's not so ideal if most people can't get it and don't want it (such as my post above).

In the real world where real human beings live religious structures have arisen and long ago proven that they are well adapted to their environment, ie. the human condition. Religious structures typically involve some kind of authority structure so that the religion can manage the process of defining itself. And...

Most people simply ignore the authorities when ever the authorities proclamations become inconvenient to the user's own perspective. As example, the vast majority of American Catholics simply ignore the Vatican's teachings on contraception. Half of them ignore the teachings on gay rights and abortion. The list goes on and on and on....

The Pope and the Vatican are not the Catholic Church. They are instead a tiny number of influential Catholics who have appointed themselves to prominent public positions. The real Catholic Church is the community of a billion Catholics and all the many different flavors of what they believe, and way more importantly, what they actually do.

As this is a Buddhism thread, some reference ought to be made to abhidharma, which is Buddhist philosophical psychology. It is the ‘third’ of the ‘three baskets’ the other two being vinaya (monastic regulations) and sutta (sayings and teachings). It’s a methodical analysis of the whole process of perception and ideation which leads to rebirth in saṃsāra. As such it’s a deep and difficult study, but suffice to say in this context that it is based on the same principles that (I think) you’re trying to get at. — Wayfarer

Again, without arguing what anybody else should pursue, and thank you for your patience as I beat my dogma drum... I'm not really talking about methodical analysis.

A methodical analysis would seem to assume that the problem we're addressing arises at the level of the content of thought (this idea vs. that idea) and thus can be solved at that level by editing thought content. My argument is that if conflict and suffering arose from the level of the content of thought then by now someone would have stumbled upon some ideology, philosophy or religion which has escaped conflict and suffering, and such a happy ideology would have taken over the world.

What we see instead is that every ideology, philosophy and religion seems to be generating it's own flavor of conflict. You know, if this methodical analysis were to become a new religion or ideology, it would probably only be about 2 weeks before it began breaking up in to sects which then come in to conflict with each other.

The universal nature of such conflicts in every time and place suggests that the source of the conflict is something all the ideologies have in common, which can only be that which they are all made of, thought itself, the medium.

The personal suffering of individual human beings is also a universal phenomena, no matter what time, place, culture, philosophy or religion etc that a person might be part of. This again suggests that such suffering does not arise primarily from cultural factors.

What I'm suggesting is that it's at least worth considering that psychological suffering might be usefully considered to be a mechanical issue, just as we consider every other operation of the body to be a mechanical issue.

To the degree that might be true, it would seem to open the door to mechanical remedies that are far more universally accessible than any philosophy or religion.

I once heard a story about some heart doctors who wanted to teach their patients meditation. The doctors removed all philosophical and religious concepts from their teaching because they didn't want to alienate any of the patients from the class. They wanted their class to be accessible to all their patients, no matter the patient's beliefs or level of education etc.

My critique of religion would be that it typically attempts to address problems generated by thought by piling on more thought. That's kind of like an alcoholic trying to treat his disease with a case of scotch.

I always planned to emigrate to the forests of Canada — FrancisRay

Well, what have you got nearby? It seems good to find something within 30 minutes range or so, that way you can go often. I find that time is the secret ingredient. It's like building a relationship with a person, you have to put in the time, imho.

The viciousness of the argument between the two stands of Buddhism is frightening and nothing to do with philosophy. — FrancisRay

Case in point. The source of the problem is not Buddhism, or Catholicism, or religion in general. The problem arises from that which all these things are made of. That's why such conflicts are universal, not limited to particular ideologies.

It’s easy to say that ‘thought is a mechanical process’ but what does it mean? — Wayfarer

Fair enough. Yes, I need to reach for better language because I'm typically not connecting on this point. I'm not sure I have better language yet though. Some patience may be necessary. Hmm...

1) Do you consider other functions of the body to be mechanical processes?

2) Do you agree that that every ideology ever invented inevitably subdivides in to competing internal factions? It doesn't matter what the philosophy is, right? If true, the division is being generated by what all the many different philosophies have in common, thought itself.

If the division was being generated at the level of the content of thought it could be fixed at that level. By now somebody would have stumbled upon an ideology that doesn't generate division. To my knowledge that's never happened.

But I think that left to our own devices, none of us will come remotely near understanding it in any depth. — Wayfarer

Do we need to understand digestion to receive nutrition from an apple? Or is eating the apple enough? That is, is our physical hunger a philosophical problem, or a mechanical problem?

In the Catholic model, the Pope is the sole authority of the one true faith, all power emanates from him. — Wayfarer

To do a quick quibble dance, the Pope has no authority in Catholicism. He says stuff, and Catholics take it in a million different ways, any way they want to. The Pope has authority over a pile of papers in the Vatican. The Pope does have influence, can agree there.